Is Jeremy Corbyn rubbish or not? - split from After Corbyn thread

[touchingcloth]

What even is the attraction of Corbyn? I'm a borderline commie in many ways, but he is so sh.t.

[discovolante]

What even is the attraction of Corbyn? I'm a borderline commie in many ways, but he is so sh.t.

He's quite personable once you get into the same room as him. Also so many other people hate him which makes other people push back.

Other stuff too I guess.

[secret squirrel]

What even is the attraction of Corbyn? I'm a borderline commie in many ways, but he is so sh.t.

He's quite personable once you get into the same room as him. Also so many other people hate him which makes other people push back.

Other stuff too I guess.

Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway? I had an impression of him as being useless for a long time, but when I came to think about it, that impression was based entirely on people and organizations I've come to distrust talking as if him being sh.t was common knowledge. I mean, he is obviously unsuccessful as a political operator in many ways, and has done things which allow his opponents to make largely spurious but effective criticisms of him, but the fact that these criticisms have been so effective also speaks for a preexisting desire to see him as useless and stupid. I'm worried that anyone who is seen to question the validity of some of our national institutions and ideals is going to be portrayed in this way. Which is unfortunate, because many of our institutions and ideals are horrendous. If any Labour leader has to either go along with them or be portrayed as useless in the manner of Corbyn (with specific details changed as necessary), then this is surely a poor state of affairs.

[GeenDienst]

Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway?

Hee's a few examples, from Nick Cohen in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RD6qni94Ks

[secret squirrel]

Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway?

Hee's a few examples, from Nick Cohen in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RD6qni94Ks

Those are terrible points. Jesus Christ. The first couple of minutes or so are saying Corbyn is evil because he associated with and supported in some ways people who committed the wrong kinds of atrocities (i.e. not those with backed by the Establishment, of which there are many, and on a vaster scale than anything the IRA did). The people who criticize Corbyn for his associations have, almost without exception, condoned actions as evil as anything he has. It is pure hypocrisy. The middle part is just saying he's bad because he's unpopular, which may be true, but is rather circular for this purpose. The last bit is him repeating talking points about the far left being terrible homophobes, sexists and antisemites. Which I don't think is true.

If this is the serious opposition to Corbyn then it just corroborates my suspicion that there's nothing substantial to it.

[GeenDienst]

Those are terrible points. Jesus Christ. The first couple of minutes or so are saying Corbyn is evil because he associated with and supported in some ways people who committed the wrong kinds of atrocities (i.e. not those with backed by the Establishment, of which there are many, and on a vaster scale than anything the IRA did). The people who criticize Corbyn for his associations have, almost without exception, condoned actions as evil as anything he has. It is pure hypocrisy.

it's not hypocrisy, I agree with Cohen that Corbyn's egregious record of allying with these people and organisations renders him unfit to lead the UK. Although, TBF, he did give us some great comedy squirming around the one where he was present at the ceremony where the Munich terrorists were honoured, but he didn't inhale. You response seems to be hand waving and whataboutery. He did these things, over decades.

The middle part is just saying he's bad because he's unpopular, which may be true, but is rather circular for this purpose.

He's unpopular largely because nobody much trusts him, as per above. I've pointed out elsewhere that he is the worst rated opposition leader in history, and that candidates report he is the biggest negative issue facing them on the doorstep. It is beyond any question that he has been a millstone around the necks of Labour's electoral hopes. So pick one:

a) Win
b) Lose

The last bit is him repeating talking points about the far left being terrible homophobes, sexists and antisemites. Which I don't think is true.

We've seen the antisemitism that came in with his ragbag of far left supporters. For me, his abject failure to fix that, over a period of years, speaks to his hopelessness as a leader.

[secret squirrel]

it's not hypocrisy...

It's hypocrisy unless you, for example, believe that every politician who supported the Iraq war is unfit to lead the UK. If you have absorbed the prevailing nationalist propaganda to the point where you cannot see that the mainstream of British politics has supported and continues to support absolutely monstrous acts, as a matter of routine, or if you just don't care, then I'm not interested in what you have to say about Corbyn. My belief is that Corbyn is hated primarily because he is genuinely anti-establishment, so arguments accusing him of things which more mainstream politicians also guilty of will only reinforce my opinion. If you don't understand how mainstream politicians are guilty of these things then you are clearly just poorly informed.

Also, the f.cking Spectator hand wringing about antisemitism. The same Spectator who host actual fascists like Taki Theodoracopulos.

[Bewildered]

What even is the attraction of Corbyn? I'm a borderline commie in many ways, but he is so sh.t.

He's quite personable once you get into the same room as him. Also so many other people hate him which makes other people push back.

Other stuff too I guess.

Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway? I had an impression of him as being useless for a long time, but when I came to think about it, that impression was based entirely on people and organizations I've come to distrust talking as if him being sh.t was common knowledge. I mean, he is obviously unsuccessful as a political operator in many ways, and has done things which allow his opponents to make largely spurious but effective criticisms of him, but the fact that these criticisms have been so effective also speaks for a preexisting desire to see him as useless and stupid. I'm worried that anyone who is seen to question the validity of some of our national institutions and ideals is going to be portrayed in this way. Which is unfortunate, because many of our institutions and ideals are horrendous. If any Labour leader has to either go along with them or be portrayed as useless in the manner of Corbyn (with specific details changed as necessary), then this is surely a poor state of affairs.

It's a shite state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air electoral savvy and political skill in the world won’t make any f.cking difference.

[GeenDienst]

it's not hypocrisy...

It's hypocrisy unless you, for example, believe that every politician who supported the Iraq war is unfit to lead the UK. If you have absorbed the prevailing nationalist propaganda to the point where you cannot see that the mainstream of British politics has supported and continues to support absolutely monstrous acts, as a matter of routine, or if you just don't care, then I'm not interested in what you have to say about Corbyn. My belief is that Corbyn is hated primarily because he is genuinely anti-establishment, so arguments accusing him of things which more mainstream politicians also guilty of will only reinforce my opinion. If you don't understand how mainstream politicians are guilty of these things then you are clearly just poorly informed.

Also, the f.cking Spectator hand wringing about antisemitism. The same Spectator who host actual fascists like Taki Theodoracopulos.

No, this is bollocks. For a start, the MPs who supported the Iraq war did so on the basis of misleading information, as we know very well. And the example I posted was from the Spectator, but Nick Cohen writes most Sundays for the Observer, and for other things, and is a longtime commentator on politics. Here is is saying similar things for the Observer. HTH.

If you have absorbed the prevailing nationalist propaganda to the point where

And more bollocks. I remain unimpressed with a party leader who has done all these execrable things you think you can wave away with whataboutery, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing from 1973, and has conducted himself with nothing more than bumbling ineptitude in his current post. You can't wave his record away, and people will see through it. Labour could have given us a leader many, many more of us could have voted for. They chose not to and now they get to suck up the consequences of that.

How unsurprising you are getting your excuses in early, blaming the nebulous and easy target of "the establishment". If you are a Comrade and want to vote for Corbyn when you get the chance, then knock yourself out. But don't come whining when the same happens again, and above all, don't for a second try to blame others for the next Conservative government.

Pick one:
a) Win
b) Lose

PS: Twitter from Cohen:

A northern Labour MP texts me about the Corbyn problem on the doorstep "They hate him. And it doesn't seem to matter if I tell them I hate him more!"

[Bewildered]

Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway?

Hee's a few examples, from Nick Cohen in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RD6qni94Ks

Those are terrible points. Jesus Christ. The first couple of minutes or so are saying Corbyn is evil because he associated with and supported in some ways people who committed the wrong kinds of atrocities (i.e. not those with backed by the Establishment, of which there are many, and on a vaster scale than anything the IRA did). The people who criticize Corbyn for his associations have, almost without exception, condoned actions as evil as anything he has. It is pure hypocrisy. The middle part is just saying he's bad because he's unpopular, which may be true, but is rather circular for this purpose. The last bit is him repeating talking points about the far left being terrible homophobes, sexists and antisemites. Which I don't think is true.

If this is the serious opposition to Corbyn then it just corroborates my suspicion that there's nothing substantial to it.

The far left does have a problem with anti-semiticism I have seen it first hand. I always thought it was more a result of bitter divisions from the Israel-Palestine conflict than the historic anti-Semiticism that infects the right, but don’t know. Corbyn is guilty of ignoring appalling things from his allies or people struggling against the edtablishment. I think he is also not very smart and would support stupid economic policies though much of his manifestos haven’t been so bad.

Otherwise I agree with you. I don’t think he is himself an anti-Semite. most of the Corbyn is incompetent stories are curcular drivel if the nature “let’s devote hours of news coverage to completely trivial and superficial things and then when people call us on this b.llsh.t tell them it’s important because it shows he is useless”. and your points about hippocracy and the Iraq war are spot on.

[secret squirrel]

No, this is bollocks. For a start, the MPs who supported the Iraq war did so on the basis of misleading information, as we know very well.

So, Tony Blair and his government presented false information to get innocent well-meaning MPs to support a war. Sounds like this Blair fellow is rather evil. So people who associate with Tony Blair or offer support to him are unfit to be PM, is that correct? Doesn't that rule out the centrist and right-wing of the Labour party?

I mean, I'm focusing on Iraq here because it's a nice obvious example, but we could go through appalling crimes committed by Western countries over the last 50 years for hours. If you condone this state of affairs but hate Corbyn because he shared a stage with the IRA then you're a f.cking ghoul.

[GeenDienst]

No, this is bollocks. For a start, the MPs who supported the Iraq war did so on the basis of misleading information, as we know very well.

So, Tony Blair and his government presented false information to get innocent well-meaning MPs to support a war. Sounds like this Blair fellow is rather evil. So people who associate with Tony Blair or offer support to him are unfit to be PM, is that correct? Doesn't that rule out the centrist and right-wing of the Labour party?

I mean, I'm focusing on Iraq here because it's a nice obvious example, but we could go through appalling crimes committed by Western countries over the last 50 years for hours. If you condone this state of affairs but hate Corbyn because he shared a stage with the IRA then you're a f.cking ghoul.

Calm down, take a breath, because the Blair bit is really, really stupid. How long has Blair been out of the HoC now? Who is doing these things, exactly?

Your basic problem here, that if you want to rule out for office any MP who was misled into voting for the Iraq war, then you have no talent to pick from. Imagine if it were different, and there was a list of people for the Shadow Cabinet that was long enough that it didn't run out before Barry Gardiner.

And there was much more to it than Corbyn simply standing on a stage with this long list of egregious people (and there's much more to Corbyn's unfitness than this, as we have seen already). He has supported these people and groups for decades. Sorry, but I can't do more than show it to you. You seem to feel able to call me a hypocrite while ignoring that. And can you try to curb the endless whataboutery? It doesn't help.

[secret squirrel]

The far left does have a problem with anti-semiticism I have seen it first hand. I always thought it was more a result of bitter divisions from the Israel-Palestine conflict than the historic anti-Semiticism that infects the right, but don’t know. Corbyn is guilty of ignoring appalling things from his allies or people struggling against the edtablishment. I think he is also not very smart and would support stupid economic policies though much of his manifestos haven’t been so bad.

Otherwise I agree with you. I don’t think he is himself an anti-Semite. most of the Corbyn is incompetent stories are curcular drivel if the nature “let’s devote hours of news coverage to completely trivial and superficial things and then when people call us on this b.llsh.t tell them it’s important because it shows he is useless”. and your points about hippocracy and the Iraq war are spot on.

Yes I don't want to imply there's no problem in Labour or the Left with antisemitism. I think there are problems with it everywhere. It's just that the focus on Labour and Corbyn is disingenuous at best.

More broadly I think this is a good article.

[Bewildered]

it's not hypocrisy...

It's hypocrisy unless you, for example, believe that every politician who supported the Iraq war is unfit to lead the UK. If you have absorbed the prevailing nationalist propaganda to the point where you cannot see that the mainstream of British politics has supported and continues to support absolutely monstrous acts, as a matter of routine, or if you just don't care, then I'm not interested in what you have to say about Corbyn. My belief is that Corbyn is hated primarily because he is genuinely anti-establishment, so arguments accusing him of things which more mainstream politicians also guilty of will only reinforce my opinion. If you don't understand how mainstream politicians are guilty of these things then you are clearly just poorly informed.

Also, the f.cking Spectator hand wringing about antisemitism. The same Spectator who host actual fascists like Taki Theodoracopulos.

No, this is bollocks. For a start, the MPs who supported the Iraq war did so on the basis of misleading information, as we know very well. And the example I posted was from the Spectator, but Nick Cohen writes most Sundays for the Observer, and for other things, and is a longtime commentator on politics. Here is is saying similar things for the Observer. HTH.

If you have absorbed the prevailing nationalist propaganda to the point where

And more bollocks. I remain unimpressed with a party leader who has done all these execrable things you think you can wave away with whataboutery, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing from 1973, and has conducted himself with nothing more than bumbling ineptitude in his current post. You can't wave his record away, and people will see through it. Labour could have given us a leader many, many more of us could have voted for. They chose not to and now they get to suck up the consequences of that.

How unsurprising you are getting your excuses in early, blaming the nebulous and easy target of "the establishment". If you are a Comrade and want to vote for Corbyn when you get the chance, then knock yourself out. But don't come whining when the same happens again, and above all, don't for a second try to blame others for the next Conservative government.

Pick one:
a) Win
b) Lose

PS: Twitter from Cohen:

A northern Labour MP texts me about the Corbyn problem on the doorstep "They hate him. And it doesn't seem to matter if I tell them I hate him more!"

Everyone knew at the time that the claims were b.llsh.t, that is really not an excuse. Moreover, for the sake of diplomacy, all governments have sucked up to horrible regimes that did/do far worse than the IRA ever did.

Also squirrel is not far left just because he happens to defend Corbyn. Stop assuming anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they are a Corbyn supporter and you might actually have a hope of seeing past your own bias.

I believe his point is these sh.t tactics seem to work and it’s disturbing, because it could also happen to a better, more sensible candidate. Unfortunately crazy right wing people who also piss off the establishment seem less vulnerable...

[dyqik]

Everyone knew at the time that the claims were b.llsh.t, that is really not an excuse.

Did they? You're going to need serious contemporary citations to show that.

Note that dissenting voices is not enough to support this claim. You need to show that the generally accepted consensus of trustworthy institutions at the time of the Parliamentary votes was that the claims were b.llsh.t.

"Everybody knows" a whole lot of things that are false or easily disputable all the time.

[secret squirrel]

Calm down, take a breath, because the Blair bit is really, really stupid. How long has Blair been out of the HoC now? Who is doing these things, exactly?

Your basic problem here, that if you want to rule out for office any MP who was misled into voting for the Iraq war, then you have no talent to pick from. Imagine if it were different, and there was a list of people for the Shadow Cabinet that was long enough that it didn't run out before Barry Gardiner.

And there was much more to it than Corbyn simply standing on a stage with this long list of egregious people (and there's much more to Corbyn's unfitness than this, as we have seen already). He has supported these people and groups for decades. Sorry, but I can't do more than show it to you. You seem to feel able to call me a hypocrite while ignoring that. And can you try to curb the endless whataboutery? It doesn't help.

I'm afraid you're rather missing the point here. If you criticize Corbyn for something which every politician is guilty of, then it's on you to demonstrate why Corbyn is a special case. If you cannot see how every mainstream politician has supported and supports groups guilty of atrocities as bad and worse than anything the IRA has done, then there's nothing productive we can say to each other.

[Gentleman Jim]

The far left does have a problem with anti-semiticism I have seen it first hand. I always thought it was more a result of bitter divisions from the Israel-Palestine conflict than the historic anti-Semiticism that infects the right, but don’t know. Corbyn is guilty of ignoring appalling things from his allies or people struggling against the edtablishment. I think he is also not very smart and would support stupid economic policies though much of his manifestos haven’t been so bad.

Otherwise I agree with you. I don’t think he is himself an anti-Semite. most of the Corbyn is incompetent stories are curcular drivel if the nature “let’s devote hours of news coverage to completely trivial and superficial things and then when people call us on this b.llsh.t tell them it’s important because it shows he is useless”. and your points about hippocracy and the Iraq war are spot on.

Yes I don't want to imply there's no problem in Labour or the Left with antisemitism. I think there are problems with it everywhere. It's just that the focus on Labour and Corbyn is disingenuous at best.

More broadly I think this is a good article.

Excellent article - thanks

[GeenDienst]

Also squirrel is not far left just because he happens to defend Corbyn. Stop assuming anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they are a Corbyn supporter and you might actually have a hope of seeing past your own bias.

Nothing in my post you quoted identified that poster as being supposedly far left. I used "comrade" as a shorthand for Labour member, who get to vote, nothing more.

I believe his point is these sh.t tactics seem to work and it’s disturbing, because it could also happen to a better, more sensible candidate.

Only one way to find out, and Labour are going to have to try it. I note that not long after Johnson became leader, before an election was called, a poll had the Tories on 30% and Labour on 25%. And then...

But if Labour was to drop Mr Corbyn as leader, the poll added the party would shoot into the lead at 34 per cent, with the Tories on 28 per cent

Of course, we've had other things sincve then, with the collapse of the BP and LDs, and it would depend on who that leader was. But it tells us that there is no reason to believe that a better candidate would fare anything like as badly. For me, this just underlines the boneheaded stupidity of Labour going into this election with Corbyn as leader, endlessly citing what a great victory the one they lost in 2017 was, or something.

[GeenDienst]

I'm afraid you're rather missing the point here. If you criticize Corbyn for something which every politician is guilty of, then it's on you to demonstrate why Corbyn is a special case. If you cannot see how every mainstream politician has supported and supports groups guilty of atrocities as bad and worse than anything the IRA has done, then there's nothing productive we can say to each other.

I can't think of a single politician, certainly on the left, who has supported the long list of egregious people and groups that Corbyn has supported with such apparent enthusiasm. If you can, then name them, and we can rule them out as well.

[El Pollo Diablo]

McDonnell?

[GeenDienst]

McDonnell?

Well, he kind of comes bundled with the main package. But they might well make him leader, if the pressure not to be the only main party to have never elected a woman isn't strong enough.

[Gentleman Jim]

f.ck me but just as a minor point - in 40+ years, I have never been called, or called someone, "Comrade"
It was a standing joke (at least in my Union(s)) that using "Comrade" was a surefire way of winding up the UK Tory press

[lpm]

Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

[GeenDienst]

Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

Come on, Runcorn have had injuries to some key players lately.

[Woodchopper]

Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

And the last game was a draw against Swindon Town FC.